A Section 166 claim fails absent proof of negligence attributable to the insured vehicle.

The appellants, the deceased’s parents, sought compensation under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, alleging that on 7 March 2006 a bus’s disk ring broke while the deceased was repairing or checking its tyre and struck his head; he died two days later

The insurer disputed the claim, asserting that the bus was stationary and that the accident resulted from the deceased’s own inaction

The Tribunal dismissed the claim, finding no negligence by the bus driver.

The parents appealed under Section 173 of the Act.

1. Whether the claimants established negligence attributable to the bus or its driver, as required to sustain their claim under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act

2. Whether the claimants proved that inadequate maintenance of the bus caused the accident

The Court applied Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, holding that claimants bringing a claim under that provision must establish negligence on the part of the offending vehicle.

The appeal was brought under Section 173 of the Act.

The appellants cited authorities concerning proof on a preponderance of probabilities and accidents involving stationary vehicles, but the judgment did not analyse or apply those authorities in reaching its decision.

The Court accepted that the bus was stationary and that its disk ring broke and struck the deceased while he attended to the tyre, but found that PW2 did not attribute the accident to negligent driving by the bus driver.

The claimants also produced no witness or documentary evidence to substantiate their alternative allegation that poor maintenance caused the disk ring to break.

The Court therefore concluded that the evidence did not establish the negligence required for a Section 166 claim and found no basis to interfere with the Tribunal’s decision.

It made no order as to costs.